General Discussion

CountAllVotes

(22,151 posts)

39. +1

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:25 AM

Nov 2013

Absolutely correct. I know -- did it myself for over 10 years and no, I did not make much (~$17,000.00/yr.). As for the benefits, same old same old. If you wanted good care and things like dental benefits, you had to pay pay pay and no, it was not cheap! Hence, I had Kaiser Permanente most of the years I worked for them and frankly, Kaiser is not that great IMO.

I really wish people knew the reality of what most Federal workers make -- those in the lower grade positions which is where many workers fall (GS-2 - GS-7).

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Older hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices [View all] FarCenter Nov 2013 OP

Welcome to what the rest of us have been dealing with for years. nt Lex Nov 2013 #1

Not all of us.. Fumesucker Nov 2013 #44

The older ones may find that getting a new job ain't so easy. Shrike47 Nov 2013 #2

Actually, many of them will have no trouble getting hired SoCalDem Nov 2013 #9

If true, it's only because they had an extraordinarily and unequitable (to us) form of benefit. NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #3

A gift from us. Lex Nov 2013 #4

Don't know about inequitable, elleng Nov 2013 #5

I say inequitable from the point of view of one who doesn't enjoy these benefits. NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #6

Actually, the exhanges were modeled on the Federal Employee Exchange CreekDog Nov 2013 #52

Yes, I recall seeing that, elleng Nov 2013 #53

Sounds like you would prefer a dog eat dog world. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #7

No. My point is that their "shock" is disingenuous. They should have been more aware and... NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #8

How do you know that they didn't know? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #12

Not to mention the fact that govt employees on the whole get paid less than the private sector...t VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #13

+1 CountAllVotes Nov 2013 #39

Congressional aides are not "government workers" last time I looked. They have an entire different kelliekat44 Nov 2013 #64

They are Federal Employees....not in the Private Sector... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #65

Snarkery. Heh. ogradda Nov 2013 #49

and only a fraction over 1% are losing "good" insurance... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #66

I'm not sure that the article is true CreekDog Nov 2013 #15

I'm sure it's true Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #18

I'm sure you're wrong, no matter how sure you are, here's why CreekDog Nov 2013 #25

I've known LL for years Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #40

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Art Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #55

That is really messed up Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #59

Not bullshit. Unsubsidized ACA plans are high for older folks. mainer Nov 2013 #63

The employer share became a fixed price. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #47

I think they are saying the employee contribution is 3 or 4 times as large. bornskeptic Nov 2013 #50

because their employer is FORBIDDEN from contributing scheming daemons Nov 2013 #10

And this does explain everything mainer Nov 2013 #62

you Better Believe It, dkf! scheming daemons Nov 2013 #11

Somethin' like that. JNelson6563 Nov 2013 #54

I'm inclined to call bullshit. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #14

How old are you? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #16

it is bullshit, here's why: CreekDog Nov 2013 #17

How old are you? The exchange allows insurance companies to charge up to 3 Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #20

I priced it based on a 55 year old, here look: CreekDog Nov 2013 #22

And that may well be 3 to 4 times as much that they are already paying. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #27

no they aren't. quit making shit up. CreekDog Nov 2013 #28

No, the employer contribution portion stayed in the legislation. It does not allow the staffers to okaawhatever Nov 2013 #30

I'm not making shit up. I am exploring and looking for answers. Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #32

well we are talking about whether the article is correct or not CreekDog Nov 2013 #33

I think they are looking at their premiums paid in a paycheck. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #48

So what? It's their own Rethug Congresspeople who insisted on this. pnwmom Nov 2013 #35

I know that. Not once have I blamed "ObamaCare". Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #37

Until this legislation, the staffers and congress itself had access... eqfan592 Nov 2013 #46

Age 59. The age mentioned in the article $6599 per year. Add a spouse Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #29

that's about the same, even less than current Blue Cross coverage CreekDog Nov 2013 #31

Was there coverage subsidized by their employers (the govt.) before? Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #36

I've always imagined CreekDog as being 12 or so. n/t Skip Intro Nov 2013 #38

:) Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #42

You're the one that started a thread in Meta about me then self alerted it pretending to be another CreekDog Nov 2013 #51

Maybe because it's now without employer contributions? mainer Nov 2013 #60

Early thirties. nt eqfan592 Nov 2013 #45

No kidding. I think if anything, they referred to the federal plan as "heavily subsidized" and then okaawhatever Nov 2013 #19

Do they qualify for a policy on the exchange? I don't... Luminous Animal Nov 2013 #24

correct. it is bullshit. look at my post. CreekDog Nov 2013 #23

What a surprise! A negative spin from you again. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #21

This smells like someone Egnever Nov 2013 #26

So what? This poison pill was engineered by the Rethugs. pnwmom Nov 2013 #34

Just more victims of the Republicans. Ikonoklast Nov 2013 #41

Geez. You never get tired of this crap, do you? HERVEPA Nov 2013 #43

most likely yet another Bullshit Anti-ACA story. Whisp Nov 2013 #56

Regression to the mean hurts those above, and below the mean, including millions HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #57

No no, it's not true! People are just making it up! And if it is Skip Intro Nov 2013 #58

Those prices don't shock me. It's what I was quoted for bronze ACA mainer Nov 2013 #61